Find a Lawyer

-- Art. 9-Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981, Rr. 3 & 9-Jurisdiction of High Court-Constitutional petition-Petitioner residing within local limits of Rawalpindi-Bench of Lahore High Court-Impugned orders passed within local limits of principal seat of High Court at Lahore-Orders communicated and received by petitioner at Lahore-Matter held, arisen within local

mliits of principal seat at Lahore and not within area assigned to Rawalpindi Bench where constitutional petition filed - Rawalpindi Bench, therefore, could not competently hear petition merely because place of permanent residence of petitioner happened to be there Petition returned to petitioner for presentation before principal seat of High Court at Lahore.-]Jurisdiction].

Mian Tariq Mahmood for Petitioner.

Asadullah Siddiqui for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd April, 1985.

Director (Administration and Operations) Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., 5, Bank Square, Lahore, intimated the petitioner through letter No. GCP 1001/12, dated 4-7-1983, that his services were no more required by the competent authority and it had, therefore, been decided to terminate his services on the condition that he was entitled to receive three months salary in lieu of three months notice period. Similarly, respondent No. 3 viz. General Manager (Finance and Accounts), Ghee Corporation of Pakistan, 5-Bank Square, Lahore, intimated the petitioner through letter dated 13th June 1983, that he was entitled to receive the pay already fixed by the Corporation and was liable to return the excess amount. At the time of issuance of the aforementioned two letters by respondents 1 and 3 and the receipt of these letters by the petitioner, he (the petitioner) was employed as Managing Director, Punjab Vegetable Ghee and General Mills Limited, Lahore.

2. The petitioner through the present constitutional petition has assailed the orders contained in the aforementioned letters issued by respondents 1 and 3, inter alia, on the grounds :

(a) that the appointment of the petitioner having been made by the Federal Government, it was only that Government which could possibly take any action regarding termination of his services and according to his own information no such proceedings has been taken or order has been passed by the Federal Government and, therefore, the order regarding the termination of his services was without lawful authority ;

(b) that the impugned orders were made without any enquiry and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to be heard ;

(c) that the impugned orders were passed against the mandatory provisions of Service Rules governing the appointment of the petitioner ;

(d) that the rules relied upon by the respondents determining the pay of the petitioner were not applicable ; and

(e) that the impugned actions taken by respondents I and 3 through their respective impugned orders were based on mala fides.

3. This constitutional petition has been filed before the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court. It has been provided in rule 3 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981, that all matters arising within the area assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that Bench. Under rule 9 ibid the area ass fined to each Bench shall be its Civil Division (s). Under rule 11 ibid, the Chief Justice has been empowered to pass such orders as may be considered necessary for efficient working of the Benches. Rule 5 empowers the Chief Justice to transfer any proceedings pending at the principal seat of the Lahore High Court or a Bench to another Bench or to the principal seat of the Lahore High Court. Similarly, under rule 6, the Chief Justice may determine cases or class of cases which may be disposed of at the principal seat or a Bench as may be deemed expedient.

The Chief Justice in exercise of his powers under rules 5, 6 and 11 supra has been pleased to direct vide notification No. 127/RHC, dated 10-4-1982, that all classes of civil, criminal and constitutional matters arising within the areas assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that Bench, except the following classes of cases which shall be disposed of at the principal seat at Lahore :

(i) Murder References at the choice of the appellant.

(ii) An Intra-Court Appeal arising out of the decision of a single Judge sitting at a Bench when a D. B. is not available at that Bench and there is urgency.

(iii) Applications seeking transfer of proceedings from a Bench, to another Bench or the Principal Seat.

(iv) Pre-arrest bail matters where the petitioner is at Lahore and is in need of immediate interim relief; and

(v) Applications seeking transfer of proceedings from a subordinate Court in the area assigned to a Bench to another subordinate Court in the area assigned to another Bench or to the Principal Seat.

4. In the present case, the Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., is located at 5 Bank Square, Lahore. The impugned orders have been passed and issued by respondents 1 and 3 at Lahore. These orders were communicated to and received by the petitioner at Lahore, while serving as a Managing Director, Punjab Vegetable Ghee and General Mills, Lahore. In these circumstances the instant matter has arisen within the local limits of the Principal Seat and not within the area assigned to Rawalpindi Bench.